Liles v. Winters Independent School Dist., 10672
Decision Date | 10 June 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 10672,10672 |
Citation | 326 S.W.2d 182 |
Parties | Vernon LILES, Appellant, v. WINTERS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Clark, Reed & Clark, Dallas, for appellant.
Yates & Yates, Abilene, for appellee.
This appeal is from an order overruling appellant's plea of privilege.
Appellee, Winters Independent School District, filed this suit in Runnels County against M. E. McGuire, Aetna Casualty and Guaranty Company, David S. Castle, Jr., Loxit System, Inc., and appellant, Vernon Liles. The suit was for damages alleged to have resulted because of the defective construction or laying of a floor in a gymnasium building. E. M. McGuire was the contractor, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company was a surety on the contractor's performance bond, David S. Castle, Jr., was the architect, Loxit System, Inc., a Chicago Corporation, was the manufacturer of a patented system for laying wooden floors which system was used by the contractor. Appellant was the sales representative for Loxit in Texas.
It was alleged that the specifications for the floor
'called for hard maple flooring laid on a concrete slab by means of what is known as the 'Loxit Floor System' or its equivalent.'
and further that:
It was further alleged that after the gymnasium was accepted that:
Various acts of negligence were charged against the contractor and the architect and that:
'Defendant 'Loxit System Inc.' by written recommendations made to architects, builders and to the public held forth and represented that the 'Loxit System' was a system 'for beauty, permanence, maintenance easy installation.' That the 'floors can be laid tight.' That they are 'easy and quick to lay'. That the art of laying same can be mastered in a few minutes. That the tenor and purport of said printed literature was that the 'Loxit System' was easy and extremely simple to use. That said literature was read by plaintiffs agents and officials who believed and relied on same. In truth and in fact said system is not simple, and is not easy to learn. The boards cannot be laid tight. A great many collateral circumstances, such as the moisture content of the cement, the soil beneath, that of the atmosphere and the wood flooring and various other conditions are calculated to result in a defective floor. Defendant Loxit System knew said system was subject to all of said collateral contingencies when said representations were made.
Appellee prayed for a judgment for its damages against all defendants jointly and severally.
Appellant, Vernon Liles, filed his plea of privilege to be sued in Dallas County, the county of his residence. The plea was duly controverted and at a nonjury trial it was overruled. None of the other defendants filed pleas of privilege.
Only three witnesses testified at the trial: Appellant, appellee's school superintendent, James Nevins, and appellee's president. All witnesses agreed that the floor was in such a damaged state that it was not suitable for a gymnasium floor.
Appellant denied that he was present at the time the floor was laid and denied that he was present when the metal strips were installed on the concrete slab. He said that he was present at the job in company with the president of Loxit System, Inc., and that at that time the concrete slab had not been poured. He said at that time they talked to the contractor and another man he thought was appellee's superintendent; that he talked to McGuire or to his foreman about the manner in which the floor was to be laid, but did not recall what was said. He explained the system he sold as:
He would neither deny nor affirm that he said the floor could not be laid too tight but said the only way to lay the floor is to lay it tight. He said he was called to Winters, that he looked at the floor and that it was in a damaged condition; that he examined the floor to determine what caused it to buckle and that the cause was that it was not laid properly and said:
The provisions of the contract were in evidence and provided that the flooring should be laid in strict accordance with the manufacturer's specifications which in part are:
Appellee's superintendent testified that the flooring used in the gymnasium was No. 1 maple and supposedly the best that could be bought; that when the gymnasium was accepted the floor was smooth and in good condition; that within a few months the boards cupped up on the edges and has continued to get worse and that it is not now suitable for a gymnasium floor. He was asked and testified:
'I was under the impression, as I recall it, that the beauty of this floor was you can--they were told we couldn't drive them too tight, could flood them with water, indestructible and would take any type of abuse a normal floor would not and it stay put.
* * *
* * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Muncy v. General Motors Corp.
...terms of Subdivision 29a, Art. 1995, VACS. Lewis Boggus Motors, Inc. v. Hill, Tex.Civ.App., 340 S.W.2d 957; Liles v. Winters Ind. School District, Tex.Civ.App., 326 S.W.2d 182; Coleman County Tel. Co-op. Inc. v. Cunningham, Tex.Civ.App., 318 S.W.2d 461; Jaques Power Saw Co. v. Womble, Tex.C......
-
Dina Pak Corp. v. May Aluminum, Inc.
...Tex.Civ.App., 386 S.W.2d 341; Panhandle Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Whitlow, Tex.Civ.App., 359 S.W.2d 146; Liles v. Winters Independent School District, Tex.Civ.App., 326 S.W.2d 182; Lewis Boggus Motors, Inc. v. Hill, Tex.Civ.App., 340 S.W.2d 957; Smith v. First Nat. Bank in Groveton, Tex.Civ.A......
-
Dr. Salsbury's Laboratories v. Bell
...Co., Tex.Civ.App., 307 S.W.2d 281; Coleman County Tel. Co-operative v. Cunningham, Tex.Civ.App., 318 S.W.2d 461; Lies v. Winters Ind. School Dist., Tex.Civ.App., 326 S.W.2d 182; Lewis Boggus Motors, Inc. v. Hill, et al, Tex.Civ.App., 340 S.W.2d 957; Muncy v. General Motors Corp., Tex.Civ.Ap......
-
Landmark Nat. Bank v. Kesler
...rights of the principal. Hotel Constructors, Inc. v. Seagrave Corp., 99 F.R.D. 591, 592 (S.D.N.Y.1983); Liles v. Winters Independent School District, 326 S.W.2d 182, 188 (Tex.App.1959). In support of the necessary-party argument, MERS and Sovereign cite Dugan v. First Nat'l Bank in Wichita,......
-
CHAPTER 10 THE RULES OF THE GAME: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TAKE-OR-PAY LITIGATION
...1981). See generally, Note, Tortious Breach of Contract in Oklahoma, 326 TULSA L.J. 233 (1984); Liles v. Winters Indep. School Dist., 326 S.W. 2d 182 (Tex. Civ. App. 1959); Bulter v. Lopez, 367 S.W.2d 868 (Tex. Civ. App. 1963). As a practical matter, it would appear that the aggrieved party......